[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120816125337.GA21526@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:53:37 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: avi@...hat.com, gleb@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/6] kvm: level irqfd support
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:34:52AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > So I'm inclined to say source IDs are a requirement for shared
> > > > interrupts.
> > >
> > > Can yo show a specific example that breaks?
> > > I don't think it can exist.
> >
> > Only the edge vs level interaction if we define the policy above for
> > de-assert.
>
> Hmm, there is still a race w/ level. If we have a number of
> level-deassert-irqfds making use of the same gsi and sourceid and we
> individually de-assert and notify, a re-assert could get lost if it
> happens before all of the de-asserts have finished.
> We either need
> separate sourceids or we need to do a single de-assert followed by
> multiple notifies. Right? Thanks,
>
> Alex
Good catch, I agree, we need a single deassert.
I think I see how to implement this without reference counting and
stuff. So we chain all auto-deassert irqfds for a given GSI together,
and have a single ack notifier. When list becomes empty, remove the ack
notifier.
It's actually a good thing to do anyway, too many ack notifiers
would slow unrelated GSIs down.
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists